The Cold War

Overview of 1945 and Its Immediate Aftermath

The world in the aftermath of WWII was completely devastated.  Please take a few minutes and review the link to the chart of global WWII casualties – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

As a result of this absolute devastation, once powerful European Empires began to crumble.  Rather than dominating world events, European nations could now only focus on survival.  The result?  Europe’s great colonies, realizing the opportunity for independence was at hand, increasingly demanded their freedom.  This process would be sometimes peaceful but would primarily be chaotic and often violent.

As Europe’s power quickly faded, a power vacuum emerged.  Who would take the leadership reins?  Who would ensure that such a war as devastating as World War II never occurred again?

The hoped-for answer was the United Nations.  First coined during World War II as the name applied to the allied coalition against the Axis Powers, the United Nations emerged in 1945 as a beacon of hope.  No more war.  No more devastation.  Only diplomacy.

Tragically, world events would not allow this to be a reality.  Devastated by the Western European colonial empires which had systematically pillaged their respective wealth, the “Emerging World” would struggle to not only gain independence from the now shattered colonial masters but to also create a stable national identity, a struggle that more often than naught was wracked by internal problems left by the retreating colonial powers. Even the UN facing the daunting challenge of assisting these new nations would face competition with the two remaining world powers (United States and the Soviet Union), world powers that even though they were initially allies found themselves in increasing conflict.

Much of this conflict is due in fact to the psychological devastation of World War II on the two remaining great powers.

World War II terribly scarred the Soviet Union, both psychologically and physically.  Millions of Soviets had died in the war.  Every family had been impacted.  But the impact was not just on an individual level.  It was also felt on a national level.  Infrastructure was destroyed.  Land was devastated.  For the Soviet Union, World War II was the figurative last straw.   Hitler’s invasion in 1941 was only the last of a long line of invasions and subterfuge perpetrated by the West both before the war and during the war.

As for the United States. . . . our scar is a little different.  We were not economically devastated by the war.  We were not physically devastated by the war.  However, we were psychologically scarred.  I’ve identified three illustrations for you.

• Scar #1  World War II had economically benefited the US, pulling it out of the Great Depression.  However, much uncertainty existed as to what it would take to preserve our newly vital economy.  Who would we trade with?  The rest of the world had basically nothing.  What would happen to our economic strength without trading partners?  The shadow of the Great Depression clearly lingered over American economic policy in these pivotal few years.
• Scar #2 ï¸² There is a certain innocence, coupled with an arrogance that defines America’s worldview in the aftermath of the war.  It is difficult to capture this worldview. However, I think the below quotes do capture a little bit of this mindset for you.  Take a few seconds and review the below quotes.  What does this say about our view of the rest of the world?

The Great Republic has come into its own.  It stands first among the peoples of the earth. New York Herald Tribune, 1945

US policy should be “to do everything within our diplomatic power to foster and encourage democratic governments throughout the world” because “we believe our dynamic democracy is the best in the world.  Harry Hopkins, Advisor and Diplomatic Emissary, 1945

• Scar #3 ï¸² Foreign Policy.  This is perhaps the most devastating scar that we face in the aftermath of WWII.  Rather than trying to type notes on this very complex topic, I’d like you to click on the below linked video and watch an excerpt from The Fog of War – Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara.  You can start at the time of 20:34 and end at around 43:20.  Can we justify the level of bombing that we use in Japan at the end of the war?  Can we justify carpet bombing of over 60 major cities and then dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. . . particularly when Japan had already begun to make formal overtures toward peace to the Soviet Union in the summer of 1945?

Within the first few years after World War II, the scars carried by the two powers were resulting in increasing tensions as each reacted in fear and / or uncertainty toward the other.

Think about the chaos of these years.  Think about the decisions that are being made in these pivotal moments.  Think about the consequences we are faced with today because of these decisions.  This is the legacy of World War II.

 #1 Debating the Atomic Bomb

In 1945, most Americans had little concept of the legacy of world history on the world around them. Even fewer understood the legacy that the atomic bombs would have on their present and future.

Read Alonzo Hamby’s The Decision to Drop the Bomb .  Watch the 20 minutes film clip from The Fog of War.

Decide if you agree with Robert McNamara’s analysis of US firebombing of Japan at the end of World War II as unnecessary. Then consider if the US was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Consider in your analysis that in this firebombing of over 67 Japanese cities, roughly 1,000,000 were killed and 1,000,000 were injured. Consider also the logic and motivations of the US in dropping the atomic bombs. Please feel free to do additional research. It is a nuanced debate, and the additional research will only strengthen your argument (whatever side you take).

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm

https://vimeo.com/149799416  Watch from 20:34 to approximately 43:20

#2  Who Did the Best Job Managing the Cold War??

Between 1950-1985, the Cold War ran hot and cold, changing course often quickly and chaotically. As you read your textbook readings in both books consider the actions of the leaders (both sides) in the Cold War. Who was the most effective? Who accomplished their goals? For instance, as you read your Cold War readings you should consider such thought provoking questions as (these are suggestions for you to consider NOT a specific requirement needed in your answer. I will be looking for the thoughtfulness of your answer):
• Did Stalin have a convincing answer to the accusations in Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech?
• Why did Senator McCarthy attack the Truman administration over its policies in China and Korea?
• Was China a lost opportunity for the US, particularly since the Chinese had split from the Soviet Union by the early 1960s?
• What does the tragedy of the Vietnam Conflict say about the legacy of such Cold War warriors as Kennedy and Johnson?
• How did the US handle the occupation of Japan?
• What do you think the motivations of Bretton Woods actually were? What do you think the result of Bretton Woods has been?
• How would you compare the leadership of such Cold War leaders as Khrushchev, Nixon and Gorbachev?

After readings, consider if possible, which US President or Soviet premier responded the most effectively to the threat of the Cold War. Which country actually managed the Cold War the most effectively? If this is not possible to do so, why not?

#3 Who is Responsible for the Cold War?

After completing all of your readings, compare and contrast the actions and policies of the US with the Soviet Union during this era.